M.R.SHARMA, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted. The respondent is stated to have sold cow's milk to the Food Inspector which was found to be deficient in milk solids not fat to the extent of 20% Fat content of the sample was 4.8% as against 4% as required by the statute. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. vide his Judgment dated February, 1981, convicted him under Section 7 read with section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, on in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while relying upon Ujagar Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1980(1) FAC 432, Hans Raj v. The State of Punjab 1980(II) F.A.J. 288, Ram Kumar v. The State of Punjab, 1982(1) F.A.C. 68, gave him benefit of doubt and acquitted him on the ground that the deficiency in milk solids not fat was marginal in nature. He also observed that this deficiency could have occurred on account of poor feed served to the cows.
(2.) IN State of Punjab v. Teja Singh, 1976 P.L.R. 433, it has been firmly laid down that the offences under the Act are municipal offences to which the doctrine of mensrea does not apply and the Court cannot decline to convict an accused person on the ground that deficiency in milk solids or fat was marginal in nature. We accordingly of the view that the learned appellate Court committed an error in not following the Full Bench decision of this Court which contained the final exposition of law on the point. We, therefore, upset the finding recorded by the learned appellate Court on this point.
(3.) FACED with this situation, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that at worst the offence was of a technical nature and that a lenient view be taken, because the respondent is a first offender. In view of the time factor involved and the circumstances explained by the learned counsel for the respondent, we allow this appeal, convict the respondent, under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and hold that the sentence already undergone by the respondent along with a fine of Rs. 500/ - shall serve the interest of justice. In default of payment of fine, the respondent shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. We order accordingly. The appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.;